|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... JF Mezei wrote: There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes). ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS National Aeronautics and Space Administration This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power... NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your own data. No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data' doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over the years would have come true. They haven't. I know mere facts won't convince you, Well, gee, **** you, too. but if you look at the predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf ) at page 63, item 3. « Based on current model results, we predict: « under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) « emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of « global-mean temperature during the next century of « about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of « 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than « that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result « in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about « 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the « end of the next century. The rise will not be steady « because of the influence of other factors; » Which can be compared to the graph in: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php You will see that observations fit predictions. So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in any case), with no demonstration of causality at all. The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperature rises. There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2 concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various sources, which causes the temperature to rise more. So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides) and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident today. No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation part. Correlation and causality are two different things. True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality, causality damned well has to show correlation. Not really. Take for instance the fact that wind helps dry clothes on the clothesline. If you put clothes on the clothesline and watch its dryness on windy days and less windy days you will probably notice that the clothes tends to become wet on more windy days because rainy days tend to be windy. That doesn't mean that wind doesn't help to dry clothes. It just means that there can be other factors than the wind. Anyway, for CO2 levels and global temperatures we do have correlation. It might not stay that way. If for instance we have extremely high volcanism in the next few weeks and that these volcanoes emit great amounts of fine dust in the high atmosphere, this could block sunlight and this year could turn out to be the coldest year in a very long time. If this kind of thing goes on for several years, we could lose the correlation. That would not disprove that humans cause the global temperatures to rise. Global temperatures would still be warmer that they would have been if humans had not put all that CO2 in the atmosphere. Global Warmists like to ignore that and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle where things got cooler instead of warmer. The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing. Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature. If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what the science says it should do. For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those past conditions? Not that I'm aware of The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases. Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that is the basic idea. But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all "settled". I have no problems with facts. Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like. Which fact am I ignoring? Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ... You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature won't necessarily follow the trend. If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it. I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would adjust the data. Alain Fournier |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-02-17 08:10, Scott M. Kozel wrote: Millions of people have lived for decades at sea level waterfront, like my parents have, and call bullcrap on the Fake Science claims that sea level is rising, when they can see for themselves that on seawalls and dock pilings that the water level has not risen in the almost 50 years that they have lived there. When sea level increase is smaller than average size of waves, the markings on seawalls and dock pilings reveal nothing. You can't take a few cm of average sea level rise independently. It is more of a side effect of global warming. 1- Sea level rise is indicative of ice cap melting. Reducing ice cap also resiudes albedo since you replace a white surface with a dark one which means more of the sun's energy is absorbed by planet. Actually, no. The majority of sea level rise so far is purely from thermal expansion. The north polar cap melting will have little to no effect on sea levels, since that stuff is already floating and so is already displacing water and so increasing sea level heights. The south polar cap, which is largely on land, is a different matter. 2- Warmer waters and more water means more frequent and stronger storms. Stronger storms dump more water (Houston). And higher sea levels means that storm surge is amplified. (Sandy which flooded lower Manhattan, destroying Verizon's copper wiring under streets, flooding tunnels etc). Actually, no. Both those cases were the result of peculiar weather combinations and not climate (or so the experts say). snip Trump says he wants to save money by pulling out of Paris Accord. Does this mean that he will redirect money to strenghten infrastructure to better resist storms? Will he pay to buuild the new trans-Hudson tunnel so the old one can be shut and repaired because of the damage from Sandy? Of course not. Climate change deniers are blinded to all eveidence so they don't even realise that they are already paying the cost of climate change. No, what he's proposing is NOT shipping billions of dollars to Third World nations in the name of 'compensation' for Global Warming. -- "It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point, somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me.... I am the law." -- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... JF Mezei wrote: There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes). ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS National Aeronautics and Space Administration This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power... NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your own data. No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data' doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over the years would have come true. They haven't. I know mere facts won't convince you, Well, gee, **** you, too. but if you look at the predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf ) at page 63, item 3. « Based on current model results, we predict: « under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) « emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of « global-mean temperature during the next century of « about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of « 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than « that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result « in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about « 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the « end of the next century. The rise will not be steady « because of the influence of other factors; » Which can be compared to the graph in: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php You will see that observations fit predictions. So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in any case), with no demonstration of causality at all. The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperature rises. There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2 concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various sources, which causes the temperature to rise more. So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides) and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident today. No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation part. Correlation and causality are two different things. True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality, causality damned well has to show correlation. Not really. Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't change that. snip Global Warmists like to ignore that and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle where things got cooler instead of warmer. The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing. Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature. If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what the science says it should do. For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those past conditions? Not that I'm aware of The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases. Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that is the basic idea. You've never developed a simulation, have you? But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all "settled". I have no problems with facts. Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like. Which fact am I ignoring? Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ... You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature won't necessarily follow the trend. Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So you should listen to what you're saying. If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it. I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would adjust the data. But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40 year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much longer. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 2:49:43 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote: Trump says he wants to save money by pulling out of Paris Accord. Does this mean that he will redirect money to strenghten infrastructure to better resist storms? Will he pay to buuild the new trans-Hudson tunnel so the old one can be shut and repaired because of the damage from Sandy? Of course not. Climate change deniers are blinded to all eveidence so they don't even realise that they are already paying the cost of climate change. No, what he's proposing is NOT shipping billions of dollars to Third World nations in the name of 'compensation' for Global Warming. It's a scam. The Globalists are using Fake Science to push the notion of "climate change", to try to extract trillions of dollars from the developed nations, to be sent to the third world nations. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
On Feb/18/2018 at 3:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... JF Mezei wrote: There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes). ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS National Aeronautics and Space Administration This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power... NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your own data. No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data' doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over the years would have come true. They haven't. I know mere facts won't convince you, Well, gee, **** you, too. but if you look at the predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf ) at page 63, item 3. « Based on current model results, we predict: « under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) « emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of « global-mean temperature during the next century of « about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of « 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than « that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result « in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about « 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the « end of the next century. The rise will not be steady « because of the influence of other factors; » Which can be compared to the graph in: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php You will see that observations fit predictions. So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in any case), with no demonstration of causality at all. The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperature rises. There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2 concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various sources, which causes the temperature to rise more. So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides) and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident today. No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation part. Correlation and causality are two different things. True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality, causality damned well has to show correlation. Not really. Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't change that. snip Global Warmists like to ignore that and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle where things got cooler instead of warmer. The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing. Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature. If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what the science says it should do. For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those past conditions? Not that I'm aware of The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases. Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that is the basic idea. You've never developed a simulation, have you? That is what I do for a living. Not for global warming but for sexually transmitted diseases. But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all "settled". I have no problems with facts. Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like. Which fact am I ignoring? Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ... You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature won't necessarily follow the trend. Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So you should listen to what you're saying. Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48. The traditional threshold used a 0.05 to 0.01 significant 0.001 to 0.01 very significant less than 0.001 extremely significant. In Spaceballs they would probably say that less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant. 10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer. If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it. I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would adjust the data. But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40 year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much longer. I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the data to get a fit. Alain Fournier |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
rAlain Fournier wrote:
On Feb/18/2018 at 3:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... JF Mezei wrote: There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes). ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS National Aeronautics and Space Administration This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power... NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your own data. No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data' doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over the years would have come true. They haven't. I know mere facts won't convince you, Well, gee, **** you, too. but if you look at the predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf ) at page 63, item 3. « Based on current model results, we predict: « under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) « emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of « global-mean temperature during the next century of « about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of « 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than « that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result « in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about « 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the « end of the next century. The rise will not be steady « because of the influence of other factors; » Which can be compared to the graph in: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php You will see that observations fit predictions. So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in any case), with no demonstration of causality at all. The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperature rises. There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2 concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various sources, which causes the temperature to rise more. So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides) and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident today. No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation part. Correlation and causality are two different things. True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality, causality damned well has to show correlation. Not really. Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't change that. snip Global Warmists like to ignore that and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle where things got cooler instead of warmer. The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing. Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature. If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what the science says it should do. For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those past conditions? Not that I'm aware of The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases. Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that is the basic idea. You've never developed a simulation, have you? That is what I do for a living. Not for global warming but for sexually transmitted diseases. And you don't do iterative comparison of your simulation to real data and correct factors for better match? All I can say is that I'm astonished! But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all "settled". I have no problems with facts. Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like. Which fact am I ignoring? Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ... You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature won't necessarily follow the trend. Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So you should listen to what you're saying. Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48. The traditional threshold used a 0.05 to 0.01 significant 0.001 to 0.01 very significant less than 0.001 extremely significant. In Spaceballs they would probably say that less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant. 10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer. Except that's meaningless since it's looking at the interval the model is tuned over AND very short term data which you yourself say should not count. If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it. I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would adjust the data. But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40 year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much longer. I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the data to get a fit. Typical Global Warmist. Data only counts when you want it to. I put forward fairly long term swatches of data and you hand wave it away with a lecture about how "short term trends don't count". Then you want to trot out short term trends as 'proof' of model validity. That's not how you validate a model in an observational science. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
On Feb/18/2018 at 9:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
rAlain Fournier wrote: On Feb/18/2018 at 3:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... JF Mezei wrote: There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes). ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS National Aeronautics and Space Administration This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power... NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your own data. No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data' doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over the years would have come true. They haven't. I know mere facts won't convince you, Well, gee, **** you, too. but if you look at the predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf ) at page 63, item 3. « Based on current model results, we predict: « under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) « emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of « global-mean temperature during the next century of « about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of « 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than « that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result « in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about « 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the « end of the next century. The rise will not be steady « because of the influence of other factors; » Which can be compared to the graph in: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php You will see that observations fit predictions. So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in any case), with no demonstration of causality at all. The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperature rises. There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2 concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various sources, which causes the temperature to rise more. So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides) and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident today. No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation part. Correlation and causality are two different things. True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality, causality damned well has to show correlation. Not really. Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't change that. snip Global Warmists like to ignore that and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle where things got cooler instead of warmer. The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing. Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature. If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what the science says it should do. For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those past conditions? Not that I'm aware of The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases. Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that is the basic idea. You've never developed a simulation, have you? That is what I do for a living. Not for global warming but for sexually transmitted diseases. And you don't do iterative comparison of your simulation to real data and correct factors for better match? All I can say is that I'm astonished! Yes I do. And they do too. But not in the basic part of their model. They don't need to do so to show that humans cause global warming. The factors they need to adjust are things like future human behaviour. Or if you prefer how much CO2 humans will output in the future. They also need to adjust parameters pertaining to feedback loops, which are totally irrelevant unless you do have global warming. But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all "settled". I have no problems with facts. Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like. Which fact am I ignoring? Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ... You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature won't necessarily follow the trend. Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So you should listen to what you're saying. Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48. The traditional threshold used a 0.05 to 0.01 significant 0.001 to 0.01 very significant less than 0.001 extremely significant. In Spaceballs they would probably say that less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant. 10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer. Except that's meaningless since it's looking at the interval the model is tuned over AND very short term data which you yourself say should not count. No a p-value of 10^-48 on the whole data set is not meaningless. If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it. I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would adjust the data. But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40 year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much longer. I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the data to get a fit. Typical Global Warmist. Data only counts when you want it to. I put forward fairly long term swatches of data and you hand wave it away with a lecture about how "short term trends don't count". Then you want to trot out short term trends as 'proof' of model validity. That's not how you validate a model in an observational science. Once again I'm not saying and have never said that this is proof of the validity of the model. It is only proof that your claim that they need to re-adjust the data to fit their theory is not valid. Alain Fournier |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-02-18 08:00, Scott M. Kozel wrote: It's a scam. The Globalists are using Fake Science to push the notion of "climate change", to try to extract trillions of dollars from the developed nations, to be sent to the third world nations. How much is the USA spending each year to repair damage from weather? How much will the USA be spending to increase its defenses against weather? Weather is not climate. All that would still have to be paid PLUS the billions in 'fees' to the Third World. It would be cheaper to cooperate with the rest of the world to reduce the impact of these changes instead of paying for constantly occuring damages. It would be even cheaper (and about as effective) to keep a herd of unicorns that could **** magic weather-correcting pixie dust. Unless the USA builds an airtight dome over itself, its pollution will affect others, and other's pollution will affect the USA. You can't be "unilateral" on this. The fair way to go about this is to set a per capita CO2 limit. countries that exceed that limit have to pay countries that are below the limit. So overpopulation is to be rewarded? Why is that 'fair' to nations that don't breed like rabbits? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Feb/18/2018 at 9:05 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : rAlain Fournier wrote: On Feb/18/2018 at 3:10 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 1:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/17/2018 at 4:50 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Feb/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... JF Mezei wrote: There are more cuts elsewhe (I like the "constrained budget" for a budget that has unlimited spending for other stuff Trump likes). ELIMINATION: FIVE EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS National Aeronautics and Space Administration This is the danger of science allowing itself to be politicized. NASA Earth Sciences got involved in the political snarl of 'human caused climate change'. That was fine until the other party took power... NASA Earth Sciences got involved in collecting and analyzing data, just like other climate scientists the world over. The fact that the data doesn't fit the world view of one party in the US doesn't mean the data is wrong. You can make up your own opinions, but you can't make up your own data. No, NASA Earth Sciences got involved in pushing a particular view on climate change and now they're reaping the 'rewards'. The 'data' doesn't support a cause. If it did, all those failed predictions over the years would have come true. They haven't. I know mere facts won't convince you, Well, gee, **** you, too. but if you look at the predictions, for instance the 1992 IPCC report https://tinyurl.com/ycns5fw4 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%...ull_report.pdf ) at page 63, item 3. « Based on current model results, we predict: « under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) « emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of « global-mean temperature during the next century of « about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of « 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than « that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result « in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about « 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the « end of the next century. The rise will not be steady « because of the influence of other factors; » Which can be compared to the graph in: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ecadaltemp.php You will see that observations fit predictions. So they got one thing close in a single report (and a couple of decades is hardly a track record, given the variability of the data in any case), with no demonstration of causality at all. The demonstration of causality is quite simple and has been known since the 19th century. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperature rises. There's many a slip between theory and the real world. When you look at the long term historical record, what you find is that CO2 concentration tends to LAG temperature change, which is not what you would expect if CO2 is a 'cause'. The lag is very short. It is called feedback loops. Temperature rises for one reason or another, this causes CO2 to be released from various sources, which causes the temperature to rise more. So temperature magically rises and falls (that 'lag' is on both sides) and CO2 follows along and you call that 'causality'? That's like saying that being distracted tomorrow caused your traffic accident today. No that is not what I call causality. CO2 has been measured in the lab to be a greenhouse gas. We know that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature because of that. That is the causality part. What you were describing above is just the correlation part. Correlation and causality are two different things. True, but while correlation does not necessarily imply causality, causality damned well has to show correlation. Not really. Yes, really. There being more than one causative factor doesn't change that. snip Global Warmists like to ignore that and only focus on the period of recent history that their models are tuned to. Even then, there's a four decade period right in the middle where things got cooler instead of warmer. The over all trend still follows what science says it should. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you put more CO2 in the atmosphere you should get rising temperature. And that is what we are seeing. Except it's not what we saw in the 50's-80's. What we saw then was increasing CO2 and decreasing temperature. If you pick and choose your data you can see anything. If you look at all the data, you see that the temperature trend follows what the science says it should do. For the interval over which the models are tuned. Now go look a half-interval outside that. Does the model accurately predict those past conditions? Not that I'm aware of The models aren't tuned over any interval. The basic model is that we know what is the global warming potential of CO2 and other gases. Those potentials can be measured in a lab. We can then calculate how much an added tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere will change global temperatures. There are numerous complications to that, but that is the basic idea. You've never developed a simulation, have you? That is what I do for a living. Not for global warming but for sexually transmitted diseases. And you don't do iterative comparison of your simulation to real data and correct factors for better match? All I can say is that I'm astonished! Yes I do. And they do too. But not in the basic part of their model. But just a bit ago you denied 'tuning' existed. They don't need to do so to show that humans cause global warming. The factors they need to adjust are things like future human behaviour. Or if you prefer how much CO2 humans will output in the future. They also need to adjust parameters pertaining to feedback loops, which are totally irrelevant unless you do have global warming. You can make a model say ANYTHING by tuning such parameters. But I know facts won't sway you because you're convinced it's all "settled". I have no problems with facts. Obviously not. You just ignore the ones you don't like. Which fact am I ignoring? Oh, 1947-1987, CO2 concentration changes LAGGING temperature changes rather than leading them, the 'hockey stick', ... You've been told many times. On short time scales the temperature won't necessarily follow the trend. Look at the graph. The warming trend is 'short term' and some 40% of what is considered 'warming trend' was a cooling trend, instead. So you should listen to what you're saying. Yet if you look at all the data, I have already computed the p-value of the correlation for you. Remember I got something like 10^-48. The traditional threshold used a 0.05 to 0.01 significant 0.001 to 0.01 very significant less than 0.001 extremely significant. In Spaceballs they would probably say that less that 10^-10 is ludicrously significant. 10^-48 can only be described as not enough for a true believer. Except that's meaningless since it's looking at the interval the model is tuned over AND very short term data which you yourself say should not count. No a p-value of 10^-48 on the whole data set is not meaningless. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, either. If the data don't fit your theory, adjust the data. And yes, that's what's been done and some people got in a bit of hot water for it. I have no doubt that some people have done strange things. As I have pointed out earlier the data since 1992 fits perfectly well the forecast made in the 1992 IPCC report so I don't know why they would adjust the data. But that's the short term. Even you say it shouldn't count. The 40 year cooling trend you want to discount as 'short term' is much longer. I'm not saying that the fit of the 1992 IPCC report is proof that global warming is true. We knew in 1992 that global warming was real. The fit of the 1992 IPCC report is just proof of what is worth your claim that they need to adjust their model and/or the data to get a fit. Typical Global Warmist. Data only counts when you want it to. I put forward fairly long term swatches of data and you hand wave it away with a lecture about how "short term trends don't count". Then you want to trot out short term trends as 'proof' of model validity. That's not how you validate a model in an observational science. Once again I'm not saying and have never said that this is proof of the validity of the model. It is only proof that your claim that they need to re-adjust the data to fit their theory is not valid. So why do they keep doing it, then? -- "We come into the world and take our chances. Fate is just the weight of circumstances. That's the way that Lady Luck dances. Roll the bones...." -- "Roll The Bones", Rush |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
US wants to privatize Space Station
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-02-18 19:20, Fred J. McCall wrote: Weather is not climate. All that would still have to be paid PLUS the billions in 'fees' to the Third World. An increase over time of severe damage causing weather events is climate. And this is what has been happening. Well, actually, no, not so much. You're pointing to ONE HURRICANE SEASON (weather) and ignoring all the others. If you allow developing nations to reach USA levels of per capita production, then the costs to the USA due to weather damage will increase a lot more than the cost of preventing this. But us shelling out millions of dollars and crippling our economy doesn't prevent it. -- "Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US wants to privatize Space Station | Alain Fournier[_3_] | Space Station | 11 | February 19th 18 12:25 AM |
New Station Crew Docks With Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | October 3rd 05 09:39 AM |
Backers: Privatize Moon - Mars Mission Funds | Tom Abbott | Policy | 4 | February 20th 04 02:16 AM |
Privatize Hubble | Parallax | Policy | 6 | January 30th 04 07:55 PM |